By Cynthia Keppley Mahmood
University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia
Pages : 314; Price : Paperback $18.95; Hard Cover $39.95


A serious scholar of Sikh tradition, its dilemmas, historical contradictions, and the deep psychological commitments of the militants, may find this book an extremely useful source. It examines the phenomenon of the militants' use of violence to achieve their goals. The events of the eighties that brought Sikhs into violent confrontation with the rulers of India, unfold issues that go further than a mere account of activities of the militants. It raises significant questions both for scholars and the Sikh community. These accounts, though ethnographically accurate and humanely stated by the author, bring out political implications Sikhs have yet to master. The Sikh militancy that draws its rationale from its own religious tradition and history, carries no meaning by itself without its correct application to the political affairs of the Sikhs. Therefore, we need to project, theoretically, beyond militant's culture into the Sikh tradition to comprehend the whole problem. What does it mean to study militancy as such or the militant Sikhs as a group ? Both the topics are the limbs of something else, the Sikh tradition. Also, how can one explain the Sikh tradition without militancy ?

As stated by the author, the Sikhs felt that the laws and the policies of India suppressed them and denied them their share of the "glow of freedom" as others enjoyed in free India since 1947. This problem becomes abundantly clear from the author's interviews with the militants. Under the effects of the events of the eighties, the people in Punjab, both Sikhs and Hindus, began to feel that their identities were separate from each other. They began to be pulled apart, thereby creating the ground for possible conflicts. Many Sikhs became defiant and sought to have their own state called Khalistan, and the momentum for achieving it was at work. Under Indira Gandhi, the tempo of these affairs changed, making direct confrontation with the state of India inevitable. The serious outrage of the Sikhs turned into the realization that their existence and their tradition were being destroyed. They also raised objections about the inaccurate references in the Indian Constitution of Sikhism being a part of Hinduism. These issues became the major concerns of the militants, and come through quite clearly in all the interviews conducted by the author.

The Sikhs, at this juncture, turned to their history and religion, and with the fundamentalist interpretations of Sikh tradition by Sant Bhinderanwale, the neo-militancy was born. This approach to defend the Sikh Dharma caused the momentum of militancy to speed up. The traditional use of the sword evolved into the use of guns to achieve what was due to the Sikhs. This prepared the Sikh psyche of the militants for direct confrontations, and removed any fear of death from their minds. The Sikh value of Shaheedi (sacrifice of one's own life) and its meaning were driven home. The author's grasp of this phenomenon in the Sikh militants touches the nerve of an ethnographer in her and becomes a source of motivation to write.

This is a story of the militant's moral and political outrage that sought to reform and remake the Sikh society, but failed. Why it failed is a subject matter of a separate study that certainly would involve disciplines other than the ethnographic accounts of the militants. The author correctly reflects on the idea that the grievances of the Sikhs with the state of India have not come to an end and may lead to other conflicts yet unknown. This, of course, is always true and possible between the ruled and the ruler when the conditions in life are intolerable. The issue is whether it always would involve militaristic solutions. For the Sikh militants, who adopted militancy in toto, this question became irrelevant.

This neo-militant approach to gain Sikh honour and solve the political problems of the Sikhs is a product of the Damdami Taksal whose fundamental interpretations of Sikh Dharma and its defense by the Khalsa, was in line with the Sikh tradition. The underlying Sikh ideology (Raj Karega Khalsa) smacked directly into the ideology of secular rule of India. The irrationality of both Sant Bhinderanwale and Indira Gandhi to resolve this serious conflict brought untold suffering to the Sikhs and the international condemnation of Indira Gandhi. These issues, involving both Sikhs and Hindus, still need much debate and soul-searching. If Indian politics is not truly secular or fails to resolve communal conflicts, then we are all doomed. These issues are extremely important and would involve serious thinking on the part of men and women shaping the future of Indian society.

The author claims that the Sikh militants are a subset of the overall Sikh community. One may argue that the Sikh aspirations are all inclusive, militaristic or otherwise. Therefore, it is hard to understand the author's distinction in the Preface when she says that this book is not about Sikhs but about the militants. How can this be a true classification when the militancy, an integral part of Sikhism, cannot be separated ? It has made them what they are today. The ethnography of militancy is Sikh enthnography, and is part and parcel of the whole tradition. Can we call this one Organism ? Also, how can we understand Sikh militancy by itself without the Sikh political theory of theocracy (Raj Karega Khalsa) ? Without it, it is hard to understand the struggle of the Sikhs. It is easy to find militant Sikhs who would affirm that they are fighting inclusively for all the Sikhs and for a separate Sikh nation. They neither want to be a subset nor want to be apart from the Sikh community at large. It would have been a good question to ask the militants as to how they perceive themselves, a subset or Sikhs as a whole. One may be surprised to learn that they will say that they are the "jujharus" (crusaders) of, for and by the Panth. The author seems to miss this implication.

Another book, dealing with the same subject matter, by Joyce Pettigrew titled, The Sikhs Of The Punjab, safely absorbs this subset classification. She conducts very detailed interviews with the militants, lions in their own den, within Punjab. Cynthia Mahmood's sincere curiosity to understand violence in humans or the militancy per se, excluding the Sikhs in general, is dichotomous. Her interviews are limited, involving only the wounded people, who are primarily out of Punjab, living in the United States and Canada, in the smoldering delirium stage and cannot forget their failed dreams in Punjab. Their stories, realistic indeed, carry unimagined frustrations for themselves and their relatives and friends. This ethnographic study of the militant Sikhs is not complete without knowing what happens to these people as years roll by and Khalistan is not yet achieved. Such a study may add another dimension in Sikh ethnography as an admixture of the militant Sikhs with the overseas Sikhs. It has already injected lots of confusion in the functioning of the overseas Sikhs, who believe that they can grow and prosper in themselves without Khalistan. They enjoy freedom of religion and other civil liberties without the furore of Khalistan. Khalistani Sikhs living overseas can neither see nor accept life without Khalistan that has to be only in Punjab. With this mind set, they are then perpetually in exile and constitute another phase of enthnography which could validate the subset theory of Cynthia Mahmood, if documented. It would be comparable to the activities of the revolutionary group Gadri Babas from America's west coast in early 20th century whose militant efforts sought freedom for India from the British rule, but failed.

Dr Amarjit Singh, a major source of information for the author, now having a political office in Washington, D.C. appears to be closer to the notion of Militant Veteran's office than a command post for the militants' struggle in Punjab. He presents a contradiction whether Sikhs can win their case by rational discourses in Washington or New York or by their militant approach in Punjab. The militant ideology, as part and parcel of Sikh tradition, is best understood in Punjab where Sikhs live than in Washington where their activities are easily classified as terrorist. Sikhs operating in Washington, politicising their case, is far from the solution of the Sikh issues. It is an agenda of a mixed bag of self-determination, human rights, and lobbying to get whatever is possible in the open forum of American democracy. This effort is primarily to present India as an oppressor, so that no foreign aid should be given to it by the United States. All this is presenting another contradiction to the Sikh politics being practised in Punjab under Parkash Singh Badal, the Chief Minister of Punjab. Should Sikhs improve Punjab first or politically own it first ? This paradox is always alive and unleashes another debate that would lead us away from the present discussion. Also, one cannot forget that Punjab is under the control of India and is not an independent country. Therefore, either Sikhs modify, understand and explain their theocratic theory or achieve their own state or worse yet, stay perpetually in rebellion. How can you resolve this dilemma ?

An anthropologist can shed tears for the militant Sikhs, but who would wipe the tears of the unemployed youth of Punjab tortured by the demands of heavy bribes to get decent employment ? Sikhs have been brought to the crossroads of moderate politics as opposed to the militant politics. Obviously, the militant politics is exhausted. The people of Punjab have made their choice and are in heavy alliances with the political parties running India. If India fails to be truly a secular state, then the moderate politics of the Sikhs banking on it meet a dead end. It would vindicate the militants and the theory of Raj Karega Khalsa, and make history to repeat itself.

Contrary to Sardar Manjit Singh's reading, holding the view that the author constructs a theory of violence (Abstracts of Sikh Studies, April-June 1997, p. 101), instead, she empirically observes the effects of the phenomenon of violence in humans, which is clearly not a theory of violence. She notices, sensitively, the Sikhs having no choice, turn to violence to defend themselves, their families and their honour as people. This human need fascinates the ethnographer and she reaches out to the militants to understand the why and how of it all. Militancy in Sikhism had been advanced by Guru Hargobind in the early 17th century and vigorously amplified by Guru Gobind Singh in the late 17th century in the creation of Khalsa to defend the growing Sikh community. These historical events, though daily referred to in Sikh prayer, need to be accurately understood. One may find the principle of militancy in Bhagvad Gita, where the battle for justice is advocated by Lord Krishna, who prepares Arjuna for war with his own cousins, who had denied him his rightful inheritance. The practice of militancy can be found in many other traditions of the world. They are caused when freedom and justice are denied by the rulers to the ruled. Therefore, the practice of militancy is not necessarily a Sikh invention.

In chapter nine, Princess And The Lion, the case of Amandeep Kaur is presented whose mind knows no fear, but sees clearly the justice to be done. She does not blink an eye to shoot the culprit. It shows how deeply the whole phenomenon of violence and justice has taken roots in the militant's life. We know what an ethnographer says about it, but wonder what the psychoanalyst would say about such stage of human psyche. In all the dialogues with the interlocutors, the author keeps focus and highlights the meaning of love, justice, Guru, brotherhood, Shaheedi and equality for all people, which is strictly in the context of Sikh religious tradition. The militants used these terms frequently in the framework of their own culture. The author's references to the Sikh historical fights and events such as Baba Deep Singh, Ghalughara, Jallianwala Bagh, the Anandpur Sahib resolution, and Charhdi Kala are appropriately used and vitalize her ideas and add cohesiveness to the subject matter.

The author makes theoretical references in the book to other anthropological studies of similiar subject matter, though extremely interesting, but are significant only in the halls of academia. Academics cannot escape the life conditions of the society from where it draws its sustenance and the relevance of their own beings. The language mode of Cynthia Mahmood's work develops remarkable psychic links with the people who, in this case, happen to be militant Sikhs. Social scientists may produce contradictions for themselves, if they identify with the subject matter, for fear of losing objectivity. She is conscious of this problem, and tries to extricate herself from the militant Sikhs. But how would you explain her sympathies, compassion, and the subjective experiences, that draw her closer to explore the state of mind of the militants ? How could you separate being human from humanising as well as from humanity ? Objectivity, in many instances appears to be a myth. What makes objectivity so sacred that it is preferred over subjectivity ? It could be another convention among the learned.

In her work, Cynthia Mahmood's intent and academic skill, though they make her walk through the shadow of death, pull her out not only unscathed, but establish faith with the Sikhs, militants and all, even transcending her own theory of subset among the Sikhs, Such relationships, rare indeed, are immensely valuable for future study of the Sikhs. She knows that the Sikhs in their generosity and trust will always share their life stories with her while laughing or crying in the presence of the ubiquitous chai (tea).

This work, as that of Joyce Pettigrew, builds a bridge between academia and the Sikhs, and will serve both well as time passes.